Meta

Click image to order

Open Thread

There have been some great comments and links from contributors to their original research here in the last few days. Thank you all. I’m taking my fiancee away for the long bank holiday weekend to celebrate our engagement. Please continue to post your additional comments to existing threads, and get something interesting going on this open thread. I look forward to catching up on our return.

solar system planets and orbits - NOT TO SCALE😉

New visitors please note: If you haven’t had a comment approved before, it will be held for moderation. Thanks.

That could easily become 100,000 times as clunky as solar cells; so tiny are the charges; or, to put it differently: Such tiny charges suffice to modulate the behaviour of droplets – that’s my interpretation.

Not sure if any of you are aware I have done a lot of work on sea level data and particularly very detailed work on the satellite data.

Some time ago the sample every circa 10 days ceased.

The reason is unclear, part perhaps to do with the flight of Jason 2, except… there have been many publishing software versions where on compare of different versions the data is in a dire mess. Or is it?

Seems 2010-rel3 satisfies them, however on checking just now this is what I find

The dataset is irregularly sampled (to do with satellite orbits), something which took some time to sort out here.

I can model the dataset very closely. If I do a rolling model with forecast, from about 2001 the dataset is predictive, is a wave of a common period in climatic and particular sea and lake level. This is also hinted in tide gauge data. Church and White for example shows a wobble as they try and join the satellite data.

Dirk, have you ever heard of Venezuela’s “continuous” lightning storm.

… near-constant lightning strikes that occur over Venezuela’s Catatumbo River almost half of the year. Apparently, sailors have dubbed the lightning “Maracaibo Beacon” because it can be used as a navigational aid. According to the excellent Atlas Obscura, there might be as many as 280 strikes per hour during 10 hour stretches.
…
It’s still unknown exactly why this area–and this area alone–should produce such regular lighting. One theory holds that ionized methane gas rising from the Catatumbo bogs is meeting with storm clouds coming down from the Andes, helping to create the perfect conditions for a lighting storm.

DirkH says:
August 27, 2010 at 8:51 pm
Want to make a cloud in a glass (or rather a beaker)?, just make a metal hydroxide, like Zinc Hydroxide. This will make you remember that Hydrogen Hydroxide HOH=H2O is your rain drop (actually 1,820 molecules forming an icosaedric crystal).
More crazy science?:

“Want to make a cloud in a glass (or rather a beaker)?, just make a metal hydroxide, like Zinc Hydroxide. This will make you remember that Hydrogen Hydroxide HOH=H2O is your rain drop (actually 1,820 molecules forming an icosaedric crystal).
More crazy science?”:

P.G. Sharrow says:
August 29, 2010 at 5:53 am
As you may suppose, any element could be defined as having a size where it retains its know properties. That tiny drop of water is, as Democritus said about it (I knew this from Diogenes Laertiius´book Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes_La%C3%ABrtius
The old philosophers were not behind us in “progress”when defining the four elements, they were referring to basic “qualities”.
When water is the hydroxide of hydrogen state, thousand of tons of it can float over our heads.http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/water4.html

Zeke the Sneak says:
August 30, 2010 at 6:46 pm
“DirkH, may I trouble you to give an overview of your charged water droplets/clouds/precipitation?”

Sorry for the late answer, i had bad connectivity for a few days.

Zeke, i have no theory, just collecting snippets. The atmosphere has a vertical voltage gradient, cloud droplets have a charge, so their height must be influenced by the charge. Are clouds sorting their droplets according to their charge vertically? Probably so. If there is a layer with negatively charged droplets, does this keep the droplets from uniting? This would explain why you can have clouds for days on end without a single drop of rain falling. As long as enough charge is there, an enormous density of droplets can exist without colliding. The first collapse in the form of a lightning discharge lowers the repellent force and makes droplet collisions more likely. Falling drops make further lightning strikes more likely; a positive feedback that leads to multiple lightnings and downpours. With every discharge, further discharges get more likely, until only a small charge remains.

I’m not sure if any of you are aware I have some very clear results to do with CO2, to do with sea level and so on. For that matter a crazy result appeared a few days ago showing aircraft heat in temperature data.

Presenting any of this stuff is difficult, made worse by the general lack of knowledge of signal processing yet that is far more important than statistics, wrong math. Add in unique software, folks switch off.

Earlier today I had yet another surprise. Was playing around with solar data as I do from time to time. In this case I was functionally preprocessing the data, sound reasons. The immediate result looked interesting so I did a quick analysis.
What came out was a jaw dropper.

I already have count the R2 nines to do with CO2. Pulled in a CO2 model principle component, translated to a common data format, visually spot on match. R2 >0.9999, from derived solar data? This is nutcase stuff and yet I am not entirely surprised because I have good reason to state that atmospheric CO2 variation is a natural process, nothing to do with man.
Overturning human assumptions when they are set rigidly is nigh impossible.

Chance? I have to assume that. These things happen and yet there is a solid evidence based basis.

I’ve just completed something else I had been intending to do, with more surprises. Recently I worked out a reasonable way to compute gravitational forces to do with the earth, was not interested in the sun.

Now I have done the same exercise on the sun. The result is not quite what I expected, nevertheless I had a look at what might be in the data.

The most surprising items are periodic components, okay is just a quick low res casual decomposition.

The 19-somthing is the usual dominant planetary period. (all in years)

Eleven we know about and 0.25

Much more interesting is 1.09 although no surprise.

The 12 and 13 were unexpected. These periods do turn up and if they have a gravitational origin that is interesting. They also seem to turn up in sunspot data yet this has as much to do with magnetics.

I then decided to have a quick crude look at the Z axis alone since this is related more to magnetics, although further processing ought to be done to try and isolate that.

This result is more direct and boring except for a twist. Yes it just hooks out the planets but not in the order of dominance expected.

Won’t be quite accurate, for Julian date reasons there is awkwardness and I didn’t type in all the necessary irrational number to the analyser.

This is strange because orbital distance and mass has been factored out, same data used as part of the previous result.

If that is correct and my maths might be wrong, it suggests the outer planets are dominant in the Z axis and that is the one most likely to trip solar magnetic change.

I point out that a rapidly rotating part or whole of the sun (we do not actually know) within a magnetic field will be a generator, goodness knows what happens. That said I doubt a direct energy effect because of so this would put a severe braking effect on the rotation, where without a means for countering slowing the sun ought to have stopped spinning by now.
Does this suggest the rotation does not play a part in magnetics?

Tim C says:
“If that is correct and my maths might be wrong, it suggests the outer planets are dominant in the Z axis and that is the one most likely to trip solar magnetic change.”

Yes. That’s what I’ve been working on. It seems natural that an up-down motion which stops and reverses would likely have something to do with polarity changes. Given Jupiter’s mass dominance among planets, it’s not surprising you found a signal near it’s orbital periodicity (11.86 years). And near the Jupiter-Saturn synodic period (19.85887 years)

Earlier today I produced a working octave chirp, another step on the road to where I am going. Darned tricky walking backwards, the road leads where it leads, bottom up follow the path. Humour on. backwards is bottom first.

I’ve put together this demo but with some results which might bring a few comments.

No. I’d be astounded if it was.
There does though look like something is going on, modulation pattern which looks as though there is commonality. That said the noise and interference, plus the highly dodgy nature of hadcrut would be fall on floor stuff if anything turned up. (I have good reasons to be cynical of these datasets which differ from the usual objections but too complex to talk about)

A lot of our problem is maths which does linear perfectly but there are all manner of other things going on. Even where there is a characteristic period for something it might be an excited parasitic, vague. This can be why chaotic tends to a value.

In theory one of the techniques I use could be made to lock to a chaotic oscillation. Not with my capability nor lack of computing bang. Maybe one day somebody will do this.

Wrote too soon. I left the software running in the background, stopped it before closing everything down and noticed it has changed to much closer. Slow convergence can do that.

Given that one dataset is daily the other monthly and differing datalengths, plus one dataset models with zero correlation (not actually that much of a problem), with rebasing of models, any match comes as a surprise.

Looks as though switching to a cleaner temperature dataset and doing both analysis properly is now worth it, sometime.

Filtering like that is fun, a 50,000 tap fir on a dataset about the same length. Trial and error hand design on something that extreme. (6 year bandpass on a short in time dataset is beyond the pale)

The result looks like beating between entities. As it stands I cannot mimic complex modulation which might handle that. This is in todo land and a very hard problem needing a major software rewrite of a high speed core. I am running away from that one.

Allied to that as a todo is allow input of external modulation data, poses some fun problems and restrictions on what could be done.